Re: Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- From: "Martha Adams" <mhada@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:29:07 GMT
"Tue Sorensen" <sorensonian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:8f3b83b2-b771-4f9b-a3e3-afb8d5fe1f21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have just been rereading the Foundation books, and one question that
still remains after having finished "Foundation and Earth" is: WHY is
it so important to keep Earth (and its radioactivity) secret to the
citizens of the Galactic Empire? I don't believe we get an answer. We
hear that the robots have been deleting references to Earth in the
various galactic archives, but it is never clear why. Can anyone offer
any speculation, or justification?
Actually, now that I glance over the last pages again, it seems
(although it isn't directly stated) that the reason for Earth's
secrecy is simply that the robots have their HQ on the moon and must
not be found. This is a rather inadequate reason, I feel, for the
robots could (and probably do) have bases anywhere in the galaxy that
they wish. And if they remain on the moon to somehow guard Earth
against discovery, we again have the question: Why? Is it all just
Daneel's nostalgia and guilt...?
I would have thought that, as the Second Galactic Empire approached,
the robots would be gradually *revealing* their secret knowledge to
humanity.
- Tue Sorensen
Well, it's not that simple. I see two basic points
of view for answering this question (and I can think
of others).
Seems to me, you're writing from a within-the-story
point of view. Taking it as a reality, which is usual
practice. (At least, for me.) My response on this
level is that "We just don't know" is also a plausible
explanation for what goes on there.
But also, I incline to not to question too deeply into
a story. It interferes with the enjoyment of it.
And another point of view, is that of the *writer*.
With Asimov, that's complex; because along with Asimov
writing the Foundation stories, was John Campbell
commenting on these and even suggesting directions for
things to go. For example, my understanding of where
the Mule came from as the work was in writing, was
that Campbell said, Asimov, you need a new direction
here. How about....
But the overall story is very complex on paper and
more complex in the writer's mind, since the writer
has to make all the choices and constructions that
become the story. Now when at a later point he throws
in a change, it's just not practical to check back and
adjust all the little details in the past story to
accurately fit its current part in writing.
So from those two points of view, I'd rather just
read and enjoy the stories for what is in them, and
not to run off too far with examination. I was young
and much simpler in my mind, when Asimov was doing
the Foundation stories into Astounding and I was
haunting the newsstand to get them as near as
possible to the minute they were on the rack. It is
a good memory today. And I think too much examination,
kills it.
Titeotwawki -- mha [rasff 2008 Aug 02]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- From: Tue Sorensen
- Re: Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- References:
- Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- From: Tue Sorensen
- Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- Prev by Date: Re: writers you refuse to read
- Next by Date: Re: Girl Genius, July 30, 2008
- Previous by thread: Re: Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- Next by thread: Re: Thoughts on the Foundation series...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|